tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7648335853014702781.post2957741246438506296..comments2017-06-25T05:52:51.117-07:00Comments on Schroedinger's rat: Do not work in Quantum Foundations under any circumstances. Or do so, what the hell.Miguel Navascuesnoreply@blogger.comBlogger28125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7648335853014702781.post-27181711589479782312015-12-18T08:39:44.857-08:002015-12-18T08:39:44.857-08:00I&#39;ve somewhat given up on QM foundations work ...I&#39;ve somewhat given up on QM foundations work that doesn&#39;t in some way address QFT. The infinities of the interacting theory are problematic, of course, but the measurement problem looks a little different because stochastic fields are slightly closer to QFTs than classical mechanics is to QM. Leaving the infinities for another day is akin to leaving the measurement problem for another day. Peter Morganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06075268176382429701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7648335853014702781.post-6001907618059220422015-12-18T07:44:50.180-08:002015-12-18T07:44:50.180-08:00A worthwhile read.A worthwhile read.Peter Morganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06075268176382429701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7648335853014702781.post-36711919319419467112014-03-22T07:23:12.423-07:002014-03-22T07:23:12.423-07:00Brilliant rant. Funniest thing I&#39;ve read in a...Brilliant rant. Funniest thing I&#39;ve read in a while.Henninghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14479459346584756683noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7648335853014702781.post-60390072072044692672014-01-20T06:41:40.506-08:002014-01-20T06:41:40.506-08:00&gt;As for usefulness: how much CHSH violation do ...&gt;As for usefulness: how much CHSH violation do they require to make <br />&gt;non-trivial claims?<br /><br />One of my co-authors has worked out the answer. Before scrolling down, close all your house windows, put some loud music and prepare to shout.<br /><br />The problem is: suppose that you violate CHSH by an amount of 2\sqrt{2}-\epsilon. How close is the state in your setup to a two-qubit singlet?<br /><br />Nowhere, nowhere in the RUV paper, or its Supplementary Material, or any talk I have attended about this result, you&#39;ll find a concrete answer. You&#39;ll just find expressions of the sort O(\sqrt{\epsilon}) for the trace distance; or, equivalently, 1-O(\epsilon) for the singlet fidelity.<br /><br />Well, as it turns out, if you connect different theorems in the Supplementary Material you do find that the singlet fidelity F equals 1-O(\epsilon). More concretely,<br /><br />F&gt;=1-10^6\epsilon.<br /><br />In other words: in order to make a non-trivial prediction with the RUV results, you &quot;only&quot; have to improve the precision of current Bell experiments by four orders of magnitude. A very useful result, indeed! <br /><br />I wonder if the authors are also contemplating to write a paper on cryogenics, explaining how to reanimate a frozen body: &quot;you just repair every single cell membrane, and -hop!- you&#39;re done!&quot;Miguel Navascueshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07090384771662989655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7648335853014702781.post-83537761536467380292014-01-15T04:03:15.201-08:002014-01-15T04:03:15.201-08:00I agree in particular with point (2). These prizes...I agree in particular with point (2). These prizes are created and then monopolised by the old boys club. What we need is a &quot;people&#39;s choice award&quot;, or &quot;shadow bell prize&quot;. It would be easy to set up an Internet vote amongst some sort of lightly restricted population (e.g. active foundationalists under 45 who read at least 10 papers a year.) I suggest the annual winner receives a symbolic one dollar and a paper crown which they can wear at conferences for a year before it needs to be transferred to the next recipient. To rectify long standing injustice, we could kick it off by voting 5 lifetime achievers like Tsirelson. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7648335853014702781.post-81528050035943176962013-12-05T10:42:03.784-08:002013-12-05T10:42:03.784-08:00Two problems with Foundations:
1. Too many occasi...Two problems with Foundations:<br /><br />1. Too many occasional writers<br />[Solution to the problem of the black body radiation was regarded to be sufficient for the associate professor position.]<br /><br />2. How many important contributions should be made by a person? Stop making of the scientists the simple employees!<br />perageniousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7648335853014702781.post-90087310984359620012013-12-05T10:11:18.590-08:002013-12-05T10:11:18.590-08:00As to &#39;delayed choice, maybe http://ptep.oxfor...As to &#39;delayed choice, maybe http://ptep.oxfordjournals.org/content/2013/4/041A01 <br />or http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.1574 or...?perageniousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7648335853014702781.post-14095137374046574032013-11-28T14:38:42.121-08:002013-11-28T14:38:42.121-08:00Thank you! Please post more often!Thank you! Please post more often!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7648335853014702781.post-82728033071668210512013-11-26T15:14:58.644-08:002013-11-26T15:14:58.644-08:00Nice read!
Nice read!<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7648335853014702781.post-60388401009107075082013-11-26T12:19:43.204-08:002013-11-26T12:19:43.204-08:00It seems we can learn how not to take work-related...It seems we can learn how not to take work-related criticism personally from our fellows mathematicians: http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=6430. Fernandohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07485882356756399124noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7648335853014702781.post-35558295665318988002013-11-26T09:51:53.763-08:002013-11-26T09:51:53.763-08:00What seems to be less appreciated is that you can ...What seems to be less appreciated is that you can only use the device once in this setting. Really weakens the result.Aaron Scottsonhttp://aaronscottson.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7648335853014702781.post-50984250596311196642013-11-26T09:46:27.988-08:002013-11-26T09:46:27.988-08:00Scientists are very attached to their results, and...Scientists are very attached to their results, and usually identify with them so strongly that an attack on the result seems like an attack on them. You know this very well, I&#39;m sure. Aaron Scottsonhttp://aaronscottson.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7648335853014702781.post-1955535711225470492013-11-26T09:30:03.082-08:002013-11-26T09:30:03.082-08:00Some thoughts:
You should work on a test for disti...Some thoughts:<br />You should work on a test for distinguishing quantum Foundations papers from noise. Maybe reading the abstract of the paper to a dead cat, and it it comes alive it&#39;s not noise. At least you know that everyone you mentioned, in both the pros and cons, is noise. How come none of the people you mention are working on ER=EPR. Is it because they are all too dumb, or is ER=EPR dumb?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7648335853014702781.post-66366450929561910952013-11-25T08:59:34.797-08:002013-11-25T08:59:34.797-08:00Scott: pointing out that your car is badly parked ...Scott: pointing out that your car is badly parked is not complimentary either, but it is definitely not an insult. <br /><br />In this blog I may speak in very hard terms about publications, etc., but I try my best to avoid personal attacks. E.g.: I would never write that this or that person is a bad researcher, or that I wish him the worst. Such comments, if taken seriously, can destroy a person&#39;s ego. An attack on a publication, on the other hand, can only affect its perceived value.<br /><br />Sadly, many people in QI do not see the difference.Miguel Navascueshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07090384771662989655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7648335853014702781.post-82001993037783858892013-11-25T04:42:11.156-08:002013-11-25T04:42:11.156-08:00Oops. Didn&#39;t mean to delete this. I think the ...Oops. Didn&#39;t mean to delete this. I think the internet deleted it for being such a boring comment.Matty Hobannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7648335853014702781.post-75248741753069019122013-11-24T22:27:34.156-08:002013-11-24T22:27:34.156-08:00Now, let me give you another line. A model that de...Now, let me give you another line. A model that definitely sucks is the one Antoine Suarez and I conceived back in 1997 http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9704038. It was nice because testable, but frankly a bit on the crackpot side. While the tests were being performed, it took me four years (OK, disturbed by an ongoing PhD on magnetic nanostructures) to figure out that the model is actually signaling, contrary to the very spirit in which the original paper was written (http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0110074). So, that&#39;s it...<br />... or maybe not: in the process of finding out that the model was signaling, I moved on to conjecture a way of disproving all forms of &quot;hidden signaling&quot; models. This line of thought lead to a very cute paper by Stefan Wolf (http://arxiv.org/abs/1102.5685) before it&#39;s completion by some friends, who were kind enough to put my name on the paper (http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.3795).<br />OK OK, maybe all this sucks --- but I had fun ;-)Valerio Scaranihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13805311755782104608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7648335853014702781.post-56547336471346817902013-11-24T22:18:28.561-08:002013-11-24T22:18:28.561-08:00Hi Miguel,
You are putting the bar very high by yo...Hi Miguel,<br />You are putting the bar very high by your negative examples: there is much worse down there, which we fortunately do not see and better not dig out.<br />Specifically, I don&#39;t think that Leggett&#39;s is a bad example of foundations. He had the idea back in 1976, but at that time he had better physics to concentrate on; when he finally published it, he put it (better: buried it) where it should, Foundation of Physics. But then, he shared his idea with Zeilinger&#39;s group and --- hey, that is a good work because it gives testable predictions! Their paper, and the hype that followed and to which I contributed, definitely benefited from Leggett being a Nobel Laureate, especially in press releases. But Leggett himself followed these developments with amazing detachment: how many of us would have requested to co-author some of those prestigious publication, given that we all discussed with him.Valerio Scaranihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13805311755782104608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7648335853014702781.post-45547023143417278632013-11-24T09:24:03.853-08:002013-11-24T09:24:03.853-08:00Come on. Do you think it&#39;s complimentary to s...Come on. Do you think it&#39;s complimentary to say that someone has published the same result three times? In this case it appears to be true, but surely the authors of those papers would say they&#39;re at least slightly different ideas.Aaron Scottsonhttp://aaronscottson.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7648335853014702781.post-91848395138916205222013-11-24T06:19:30.301-08:002013-11-24T06:19:30.301-08:00A very inspiring paper.A very inspiring paper.Miguel Navascueshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07090384771662989655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7648335853014702781.post-81470654197901802892013-11-24T06:19:00.133-08:002013-11-24T06:19:00.133-08:00I do appreciate the Reichardt-Unger-Vazirani exten...I do appreciate the Reichardt-Unger-Vazirani extension to parallel games. It is very infuriating, though, to hear from very good researchers comments like: &quot;&quot;self-testing&quot;? What&#39;s that? Ah, you mean &quot;rigidity&quot;!&quot;.<br /><br />As for usefulness: how much CHSH violation do they require to make non-trivial claims?Miguel Navascueshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07090384771662989655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7648335853014702781.post-63031884186662049072013-11-24T06:11:56.497-08:002013-11-24T06:11:56.497-08:00Two things:
a) I am not insulting anybody.
b) On...Two things:<br /><br />a) I am not insulting anybody.<br /><br />b) One of my co-authors asked me to postpone the post until the QIP decisions were made. Had I submitted my work alone, I would have published the post a month ago.Miguel Navascueshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07090384771662989655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7648335853014702781.post-79284118575546883332013-11-24T05:33:10.678-08:002013-11-24T05:33:10.678-08:00(this is Anonymous 24 November 2013 05:27----I for...(this is Anonymous 24 November 2013 05:27----I forgot to include my name)<br /><br />I wanted to address the Rat&#39;s comment, &quot;Or should I try Nature Communications this time?&quot; You should no that nobody aims to publish their paper in Nature Communications. It must first take &quot;the path&quot;: Submission to Nature, Submission to Science, Submission to Nature Physics, and then reluctant submission to Nature Communications. Probably Nature Communications publishes the most thoroughly rejected papers in the world. They may actually reject a few, but not a whole lot.<br /><br />Aaron Scottsonhttp://aaronscottson.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7648335853014702781.post-53172823967654242102013-11-24T05:27:59.580-08:002013-11-24T05:27:59.580-08:00Well, the Rat is not as brave as I thought. He wa...Well, the Rat is not as brave as I thought. He waits till just *after* the QIP decisions go out to to insult the PC chair publicly. This raises a point, though. Could we have a post discussing the QIP program once it becomes public? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7648335853014702781.post-38426771965215136632013-11-23T19:40:39.961-08:002013-11-23T19:40:39.961-08:00(same anonymous as the last comment:)
Maybe you v...(same anonymous as the last comment:)<br /><br />Maybe you view it differently because these are CS applications more than foundational ones. But from the CS perspective, their improvement makes this essentially the first useful self-testing result.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7648335853014702781.post-53292832238041661632013-11-23T19:38:30.810-08:002013-11-23T19:38:30.810-08:00I&#39;m glad the rat is still in business. But I&...I&#39;m glad the rat is still in business. But I&#39;m not convinced the conventional wisdom is wrong to be excited about Reichardt-Unger-Vazirani. The McKague-Yang-Scarani paper is also interesting, but I think the key new improvement of RUV was getting the bound to work for n parallel CHSH games. This has led to applications that previously were elusive, like proving QMIP=MIP* and infinite randomness expansion (in http://arxiv.org/abs/1310.6755 ).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com